This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

Originally Posted by roguenuke

No they won't. One ruling that holds that a restriction on marriage of any kind in a state violates the EPC will strike them all down, just as it did with race restrictions on marriage. There were at least two states that had constitutional amendments saying that marriage could be legally recognized when between people of the same race. Loving struck those down with the simple legal restrictions.

BS. The SC just ruled ruled that 29 states can keep their anti-SSM laws in place.

Re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

Originally Posted by Trip

1.)Facts proving they are not the same ...

2.)Without any claim of my being Carnac the Magnificent, I can say with absolute certainty that you yourself are the product of a heterosexual relationship, and not at all the product of a gay union.
3.) Either that makes me absolutely clairvoyant, or I am relying on real, hard facts that have been around for a long, long time, and aren't about to change.

1.) correct, civil unions are not equal to marriage
2.) meaningless
3.) this makes no sense

let me know when you have something relevant to the topic

Originally Posted by RamFel

Genetically human & human being is exactly the same thing.

Originally Posted by Hicup

homosexuality is objectively wrong, but because science tells me it is, not politics.

Re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

Another ideologue who improperly uses an analogy. Probably for political sake. See, most people don't prevent SS couples from uniting... unlike, as you post, interracial relationships.

On the contrary, most know that they cannot prevent interracial couples from uniting but some would still seek to restrict them from legal marriages for the very same reasons that they wish to restrict same sex couples. In fact, many of those who wish to prevent same sex couples from getting married would gladly put back into place sodomy laws and enforce them against gays. So yours is the failed argument.

"A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

Re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

Originally Posted by Fisher

BS. The SC just ruled ruled that 29 states can keep their anti-SSM laws in place.

The decision did, in fact, leave 29 states free to define marriage as man and woman. This was not an EPC issue insomuch as homosexuals having a right to be married because homosexuals can be married in all 50 states already. This was an issue of whether or not the federal government could treat some marriages different from other marriages and that's where "equal rights" came in. Why would people with certain marriages be treated differently from other people with equal marriages (according to the state). Well, they can't. This in no way was a statement by the Supreme Court that marriage must be redefined to include same sex unions. On the contrary, it was a decision upholding the state's rights to define marriage and that it wasn't the federal government's position to override that definition.

Re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

1.) correct, civil unions are not equal to marriage
2.) meaningless
3.) this makes no sense

let me know when you have something relevant to the topic

No, those are not separate points, but all involving the same single point.

I was not addressing civil unions, but the fact that gay unions are not equal to marriage.

The FACT is you and everyone else on the planet came from heterosexual relationships, not gay relationships, and by that fact, society has a vested interest in those heterosexual relationships being committed - marriage, and no such vested interest in gay relationships.

You actually are the fact, and one fighting against the sense of his very existence.

"If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary."
~ James Madison

Re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

Originally Posted by Fisher

No what you are seeing is that they are going to have to do it state by state legislatively. The SCOTUS just said gays can marry in CA but not in 29 other states.

No, they won't. They will only have to have one case where the SCOTUS rules that the state has no valid reason for restricting marriage access based on sex. It will only take one. The CA ruling was based on the challengers to the original court's decision having no legal standing because they were not the government representatives. In other states, such as Southern states, it is not likely that the government will refuse to defend their bans, so there will be legal standing and that would make a ruling that came out similar to DOMA applying to all the state bans that were relevant, which would most likely be all of them.

"A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

Re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

Originally Posted by Trip

1.)No, those are not separate points, but all involving the same single point.

2.)I was not addressing civil unions, but the fact that gay unions are not equal to marriage.

3.)The FACT is you and everyone else on the planet came from heterosexual relationships, not gay relationships, and by that fact, society has a vested interest in those heterosexual relationships being committed - marriage, and no such vested interest in gay relationships.

4.)You actually are the fact, and one fighting against the sense of his very existence.

1.) yes they factually are because you are trying to argue your opinion as fact and it has failed
2.) again your opinion on this is meaningless
3.) this is meaningless to legal marriage, you trying to change this fact will never work
4.) 100% false this is NOT a fact because i could easily exist with out marriage and do

Originally Posted by RamFel

Genetically human & human being is exactly the same thing.

Originally Posted by Hicup

homosexuality is objectively wrong, but because science tells me it is, not politics.

Re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

Originally Posted by roguenuke

On the contrary, most know that they cannot prevent interracial couples from uniting but some would still seek to restrict them from legal marriages for the very same reasons that they wish to restrict same sex couples. In fact, many of those who wish to prevent same sex couples from getting married would gladly put back into place sodomy laws and enforce them against gays. So yours is the failed argument.

What I find this to be about is the radical left trying to redefine anything they wish however they wish to accommodate whatever perversions they wish. Despite memorized talking points to the contrary that cite obscure "homosexual marriages in history", everyone talking about this was born at a time when marriage was absolutely one man plus one woman and had been for all our history. Homophiles can disingenuously pretend that marriage definitions that we have today are only some recent innovation for the sake of discriminating against homosexuals but that's just hyperbole and everyone knows it.

Some buy the argument "well, why not"? I think "well, why not" is a very bad reason for creating laws. Laws governing institutions like marriage should be based on "why" and homosexual "marriages" don't fit any of the "why" bullet points for the creation of marriage in the first place.

It's silly to argue that state sanctioned marriage was originally created to

* give homosexuality an appearance of normality
* give tax breaks to any two people that want to have a long term sexual relationship
* make a statement by a militant activist group of attention whores with narcissistic personality disorders.

But that's what the advocates of homosexual marriage are working toward.

Re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

Originally Posted by Papa bull

What I find this to be about is the radical left trying to redefine anything they wish however they wish to accommodate whatever perversions they wish. Despite memorized talking points to the contrary that cite obscure "homosexual marriages in history", everyone talking about this was born at a time when marriage was absolutely one man plus one woman and had been for all our history. Homophiles can disingenuously pretend that marriage definitions that we have today are only some recent innovation for the sake of discriminating against homosexuals but that's just hyperbole and everyone knows it.

Some buy the argument "well, why not"? I think "well, why not" is a very bad reason for creating laws. Laws governing institutions like marriage should be based on "why" and homosexual "marriages" don't fit any of the "why" bullet points for the creation of marriage in the first place.

It's silly to argue that state sanctioned marriage was originally created to

* give homosexuality an appearance of normality
* give tax breaks to any two people that want to have a long term sexual relationship
* make a statement by a militant activist group of attention whores with narcissistic personality disorders.

But that's what the advocates of homosexual marriage are working toward.

The same arguments given for legalization of interracial marriage. It isn't. It is about fairness in laws. Marriage is in no way gender dependent legally. Allowing same sex couples to marry will not harm anyone. Your arguments go much further in exposing your own selfishness in wanting to maintain your personal definition of marriage as the only one.

"A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt